Inside Deepthroat

Inside Deep Throat examines the social, political, and personal ramifications of the iconic pornographic film Deep Throat. The film is humorous, fast paced, and very entertaining. It contains interviews with a variety of colorful characters including several former industry insiders who now look like your best friend's crazy great aunt and uncle. There is nothing quite like learning about the sexual revolution from a group of septuagenarians. Also included are commentary by figures such as Hugh Hefner, Erica Jong, and John Waters, archival footage from the era, and of course scenes of the "talent" which made the film famous. All this, set to a background soundtrack of 70s funk and disco music.

The film places Deep Throat (perhaps with a bit of exaggeration) at the the heart of a cultural war which involved diverse groups such as the Nixon administration, Christian conservatives, feminists, freedom of speech advocates, the porn industry, and even the mob. Many of those involved in the making of the film saw Deep Throat as a crux in the history of pornography, a moment when porn was on the verge of crossing over into the mainstream. They look back upon their participation sentimentally, almost mourning the eventual failure of this movement and the backwards progress made regarding censorship and the hyper commercialization of the porn industry. This aspect represents a contradiction in the film. Whereas in the beginning the filmmakers interviewed seemed to regard Deep Throat as an utterly ridiculous and poorly made film, by the end they talk about their work as if it were art of the highest form.

Inside Deep Throat also takes a look at the darker side of the making of this film, albeit a brief one. Ties with the mob and the eventual turnaround of star Linda Lovelace are addressed but not delved into. It is likely the filmmakers did not want to break with the humor and light attitude of film for too long; a decision which upped the entertainment factor but somewhat compromised the film's role as a documentary.

Stylistically, this film reminded me of Who Killed the Electric Car? and This Film is not Yet Rated. Both of these films share Inside Deep Throat's fast based upbeat style, humor, and catchy soundtrack and all three were extremely entertaining. I do have to say, however, that the most entertaining aspect of the film had nothing to do with its style. For me what was funniest was the reaction of the male audience to poor Andrea "More More More" True. How do you like that?

Soldiers of Conscience

Directed by Gary Weimberg and Catherine Ryan, this documentary investigates the issue of killing in war. The film follows several American soldiers who served in Iraq and then made the decision to become Conscientious Objectors. It also has interviews with members of the Army who defend the necessity of killing in war. The main soldiers who are profiled are two who decided to apply for CO status in Iraq, one who applies while on duty at home, and a fourth who went AWOL because he felt the war was unjust. Several of these soldiers faced prosecution and jail time because of their choices. A fifth soldier, who teaches at Westpoint, tries to provide other soldiers with a philosophical basis to justify the need to kill in war. All of the men who are profiled defend their positions articulately and clearly. The film was fairly balanced; no one came out as the villain during this documentary.

Soldiers of Conscience contains some graphic images of death, destruction, and the mistreatment of Iraqi men and women at the hands of American soldiers. These type of images are never seen in the mainstream media, and although sensational, I do not believe the filmmakers used these images for shock value. The point that many of the soldiers try to make, is that if we are going to ask our troops to kill for us, we should know exactly what kind of sacrifices we are asking them to make. The price of this war is a lot higher than most people dare to imagine.

This documentary gives Americans a much needed look at what is involved in war. There is always a lot of discussion about the physical sacrifices that American troops make for our country, but there is rarely talk about the moral sacrifices. These men were asked to take actions that were so far outside the realm of decency in the "real world" it is astonishing. There is clearly something fundamentally wrong with the way we condition our soldiers to kill like machines. It is dangerous to chip away at a person's humanity and then send them out with a gun and very few rules of conduct. What is worse is that when soldiers object to the brutality they are asked to commit, they are ridiculed, scrutinized, and often punished. Many serve jail time for refusing to kill a fellow human. Jail should be reserved for dangers to society, but I have to say, I fail to see the danger in these men.

Run Lola Run

Run Lola Run is an unconventional film with a conventional plot basis: a woman desperate to save the man she loves. Lola has 20 minutes to come up with 100,000 marks to replace the money her boyfriend Manni must deliver to a gangster but lost on a subway. If she does not make it in time, Manni will rob a store to get the money. The camera follows Lola, a gorgeous woman with hair dyed fire red, as she runs desperately through the streets, each small choice she makes along the way affecting the final outcome in critical ways.

When she runs, the world around her seems to be somewhat artificial, almost as if she were inside a video game. As she passes by and interacts with people on the street, the viewer gets a speedy photographic rundown of each person's future, based on this encounter with Lola. The scenes of her running by far make up the bulk of the film, which is interesting, because these are precisely the scenes that would be cut down to mere seconds in any other action film. It is through these scenes, however, that the viewer can understand the passion, desperation, and devotion to Manni that allows Lola to bend the rules of reality and recreate her fate over and again.

The almost seamless transition between the scenes is a testament to the artistic skill of the writer/director, Tom Tykwer. The dynamic and artificial quality of the action shots are juxtaposed against intimate flashback scenes of Lola and Manni in bed. The emotive quality of these scenes is very different from the action shots, but their inclusion in no way interferes with the viewer's absorption into the story. These scenes are the driving force behind Lola's ability to change time and are crucial to the narrative. They could have easily become saccharine sweet under a lesser writer, but instead the exchanges between Lola and Manni are witty and humorous.

At its core, Run Lola Run is a story about the power of love. The viewer cannot help but to root for this quirky, unlikely heroine and her tragically unfortunate boyfriend. In the end, both take fate into their own hands rather than relying on others, and come out victorious. After the tension and the speed of the entire film, the final scene is so calm and reassuring it is almost alarming. There is almost an expectation that something must go wrong. This is not the case however, because not only have Lola and Manni managed to thwart any immediate dangers, they have come out on top. Tykwer is truly a romantic.

Born into Brothels

The writers and directors of Born into Brothels, Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman seem to have won a lot of awards for their film, including an Academy Award for Best Documentary, but personally I was not really a fan. Sure, the film provides a rarely seen look into the red light district of Calcutta and a heartbreaking portrait of the children of prostitutes, but I think in many ways it was exploitative.

Zana Briski, a documentary photographer, enters the brothels to photograph the prostitutes and befriends their children in the process. She then decides to give the children cameras and teach them to take photographs... while filming the process of course. I am not saying that Briski did not have good intentions, she obviously felt very strongly about the children and fought very hard to get them out of the brothels, but in the process the documentary became her story, not the children's. I do not think her film should really qualify as a documentary because she controlled every aspect of the story.

Many of the contemporary documentaries we have watched have blurred the boundaries of objectivity, but Briski breaks them down completely. She is the central character, narrator, writer and director (along with Kauffman) of the film. Everyone watching this documentary wants to see these children get out of the brothels, particularly the girls who will be forced into prostitution very young, but Briski seems to project cultural values onto these children and their families that they simply do not possess.

Briski grew close to these children, so it is only natural that she would feel such a strong responsibility to save them from the brothels, but some have argued that her efforts actually had a negative effect on the children. Regardless of whether she helped or hurt these children, she allowed her attachment to affect her ability to act as a documentary filmmaker and to tell these children's stories. She should have chosen her role as a documentary filmmaker or a social worker and not tried to combine the two. The positive reception of her film probably had more to do with the children who appeared in it. It is impossible not to admire the strength and smarts of these young kids and to want to see them succeed, but we cannot forget that there are thousands more who share their fate. We cannot, like Briski allow ourselves to be blinded by our attachment to these children.

Children of Men

At first I was surprised that we were going to watch Children of Men in class because it is a narrative film. Once I experienced director Alfonso Cuaron's distinct visual style, however, the choice made perfect sense.

Set two decades in the future in a dystopian society plagued by worldwide infertility, the film addresses the concept of faith in the face of utter hopelessness. It also tackles the issue of immigration law by presenting Britain as a country consumed by the search for and torture of illegal immigrants. There is a wealth of strong imagery in the film, which makes visual references to Catholicism, war reporting, and the Holocaust through startling scenes of detainee camps and terrorism.

The most striking visual aspect of the film, however, is Cuaron's stunning use of extended single shot sequences. The film mimics the style of a documentary film by using hand held cameras that follow the action without interruption. The camera shakes throughout the film and at one point blood splatters onto the lens, which creates an effect rarely seen in narrative film. During a scene where the main character, Theo, is running down a street through a war zone, the camera seamlessly follows his every move. The viewer always remain at eye level with Theo whether he is running, ducking, or kneeling with a gun pointed at his head. In this way, the viewer becomes part of the action, or at least believes that the cameraman is. The effect of these scenes is that the entire film feels frighteningly real and extremely raw.

I thought Children of Men was an incredible film. The fluidity of the camerawork, strength of the imagery, and open ended nature of the plot made it interesting and engaging. There are many details which are never fully explained and even the ending is left open for interpretation. Do we find hope in the final scene or defeat? Are we a witness to the apocalypse or to a new beginning for mankind?

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Who Killed the Electric Car? does not hide its bias (its right there in the title) as it follows the birth, brief life, and death of General Motor's EV1 electric car. There are a wealth of interviews in the film, from former EV1 drivers, members of the development team, politicians, General Motors spokespeople, politicians, and celebrities such as a crazed looking Mel Gibson. It also has a good soundtrack and clever organization.

Without feigning objectivity, the film contains a list of "suspects"(consumers, batteries, oil companies, car companies, government, California air resources board, and hydrogen fuel cells) which the filmmakers "investigate" then proceed to render verdicts on. This is a far cry from traditional documentaries which simply capture action as it occurs with the purpose of maintaining an objective distance. Not only did the filmmakers have a motive in making this film, but they also entered their own opinions directly into the piece.

The film certainly covers a lot of ground in an hour and a half and some of the evidence it presents is persuasive to say the least. I myself feel very strongly about environmental issues and this film definitely upset me. If we have the technology to produce these cars we should be doing so. There are batteries with capacities which more than compensate for the daily driving needs of most Americans, yet there are no electric cars on the road. The addition of electric cars into the market could have a profound impact on our carbon emissions in this country. At the very least, hybrid plug ins should already be widespread considering how attainable and plausible this technology is.

Despite the fact that I know Who Killed the Electric Car? has a biased point of view, I was still convinced by this film. It appealed to me on an emotional and intellectual level enough to make me want to take some kind of action. Today's documentary films do not necessarily have to resemble National Geographic programs. Our concept of what it means to be a documentary film has broadened as rhetoric has entered the picture more and more explicitly.

Holy Watergate

Many of the films we have viewed this semester have been disturbing in some way, but Holy Watergate, produced, written, directed, and narrated by Mary Healey of URI, brought it to a whole new level. Healey combines documentary and investigative journalism to uncover the story behind sexual abuse by priests in our area. She is obviously very skilled because the interviews she manages to get for her film are extraordinary. Among those who appear on camera are several abuse victims (including one who is now himself a Catholic priest), a former priest who admits to having sexually abused children, and a high ranking U.S. Cardinal with some surprising personal thoughts on the scandal.

Healey herself is personally invested in the story. One of the former victims in the film is a childhood friend of hers. This connection interferes with the critical distance usually required by filmmakers in traditional documentaries, but it seems to be the trend in contemporary documentaries to slightly overstep these boundaries. Despite this possible conflict, the film is excellent and incredibly dense in evidence. Not only does she expose how the Catholic Church attempted to cover up the scandal by shuttling abusive priests from parish to parish and intimidating victims with potential lawsuits, but she also addresses the media's failure to adequately cover the scandal.

Holy Watergate continues the theme of good and evil that has been present throughout most of the documentaries we have watched this semester. For children it seems so easy to recognize right from wrong and good from evil, which is unfortunately what makes them easily victimized. As we grow, however, its becomes apparent that there is no way to recognize evil. It exists among the commonplace and often among the very people we are supposed to trust.

Sister Rose's Passion

Sister Rose's Passion probably owes most of its success to its subject, Sister Rose Thering, an 84 year old Dominican nun who is one tough cookie. She has dedicated her life to changing the Catholic Church's teachings about Jesus and the Jewish people and fighting anti-Semitism. This is an interesting and difficult stance for a Catholic nun to take, and surprisingly to some she has been fought every step of the way by her superiors and peers.

The documentary succeeded because it allowed the "character" of Sister Rose to take the forefront throughout the film through her personal commentary and lectures. It was most likely very difficult for the filmmakers to gain access to information on the Catholic Church relating to this issue, but they presented solid evidence to back up the story they were telling. The filmmakers also managed to maintain an objective distance from their subject.

It is not surprising that this film was nominated for an Academy Award. Not only was I pulled into the film by Sister Rose's enormous personality, but the documentary also managed to play on the theme of the power of the individual against society without appearing cheesy in the least. Sister Rose's determination succeeded in changing Church doctrine. Anyone who submits to feeling powerless in any situation should keep her story in mind.

Prisoner of Paradise

Prisoner of Paradise presented an interesting story which relied completely on the film's objectivity. German actor Kurt Gerron is a complex study in human behavior. Assigning him blame for the film he created for the Nazis is problematic, yet it is also impossible to see him solely as a victim. Many men before and after Gerron have seen pride become their fatal flaw. Gerron let ambition stop him from escaping Europe when he still had the chance and it likely played a factor in his decision to direct a Nazi propaganda film about the concentration camps. Maybe Gerron really believed that making the film would save his life, but he was well aware that the children he attempted to capture with smiling faces would shortly be shipped by train to their deaths. Surely he knew deep down that he was not far behind. Gerron's film victimized his fellow captives all over again by forcing them to be used as instruments of deception. His film was meant to show the world that the people who would later murder him were humane and compassionate. Gerron was not an evil man, and he was not a Nazi, but he was still capable of being swept into the madness, and for that he paid a price.

Triumph of the Will

Triumph of the Will has a startling relevance in our society today. The most important issue raised by this film is how difficult it is to recognize evil. One would expect a Nazi propaganda film to be filled with hate and images of atrocities, yet director Leni Riefenstahl creates a portrait of the Nazis which hides this hate behind a veil of nationalism and progress. She uses the camera impressively to portray the magnitude of Hitler's support. At one point the camera pans over the tents of troops (who are all the picture of health and happiness) which seem to stretch on into infinity. The crowds which greet Hitler at his various speaking events also appear limitless. Riefenstahl made use of 30 moving cameras to create these effects, a number which was considerably ambitious, particularly for the time. The entire effect of the film, beginning with the opening scene in which Hitler descends into Germany in a plane, is to deify Hitler, which is an issue that seems to be a problem in our country today. In creating this type of persona in our leader we hand far too much power and infallibility to one individual and plant the seeds of corruption in blind obedience.

Jesus Camp

Jesus Camp, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, was a brilliant documentary. It not only had a compelling point of view, but it was presented objectively, without interference from the filmmakers. After watching this film I could not stop thinking about it.

The documentary follows a group of young children who attend Pastor Becky Fischer's "Kids on Fire" summer camp. Fischer is part of a group of Evangelical Christians who believe the youth need to be made into "warriors" in "God's army." The children are taught how to recruit new followers, become prophets, live a "pure" life, and, most importantly, advocate right-wing conservative values in the political arena.

The filmmakers certainly did not have a shortage of disturbing footage. Between images of the children crying and speaking in tongues, praying to large cardboard cutouts of George Bush, delivering sermons, attending pro-life rallies with tape over their mouths, and learning "Christian science" are clips of Fischer's lectures to the families. During these sermons she preaches the importance of "taking back America for Christ" using various props such as stuffed lions and balloons. There is a great scene where she warns the children against the evils of Harry Potter, calling him an "enemy of God" and suggesting that he be put to death.

The film ended subtly with Levi, a young boy being groomed to be the next mega church pastor, wandering to the center of the New Life Church to shake Pastor Ted Haggert's hand. It is the future meeting the present. Levi is all wide-eyed innocence and Haggert is clearly on guard and speaks to Levi very condescendingly. This scene is powerful, because by this time it is very easy to imagine Levi giving his sermon to the crowd of thousands who had filled the church moments earlier.

Jesus Camp was effective because it offered a clear and objective look at a movement which is very powerful in America today. The fact that the movie is disturbing to many people who watch it has little to do with the filmmakers' intent. Instead, the scenes and characters speak for themselves. I left this film very frightened about the future of our country. To me, what they are doing to these children is brainwashing and it is dangerous and cruel. It made me angry and impassioned, which is why the documentary was so compelling for me.

Zoo

Zoo was a difficult film to watch. Not only because its subject matter is so taboo, but also because of its slow pace and difficulties in narration. Like the rest of the world, filmmakers Robinson Devor and Charles Mudede were shocked by the events which took place in Washington after the death of a local man who suffered a ruptured colon after having sex with an Arabian stallion. The man's death led to the uncovering of an Internet community dedicated to zoophilia. Director Robinson Devor felt that the media coverage of these events left out the psychological aspect of the story and said he sought to find the "universal humanity" in the events through his documentary.

The film was certainly objective. The filmmakers remained a step removed from the story, relying on the narration of fellow zoophile acquaintances of the deceased man as well as of the woman who rescued the horses involved in the incident. One problem with this was that the men's voices sounded very similar and it was very difficult to tell who was speaking throughout the story as it skipped around through place and time.

The tone of the film was very somber and as I said, it moved quite slowly. Devor obviously resisted sensationalizing the events and attempted to create a poetic aesthetic experience for the story. He recreated events in order to convey the emotions of those involved, which in many ways interfered with his objective self removal from the story. I am a bit skeptical of his approach, because I do not think that a film maker chooses this type of subject matter with the sole intent to downplay its shock value.

I was very surprised to learn that this film received an award at the Sundance Film Festival and was picked up for distribution by THINKFilm. I just cannot picture anyone walking into Blockbuster and renting or buying this documentary. Also, I personally did not feel engaged by the film. I was glad when it was over, not because I was disturbed by the subject matter, but because the film dragged on. I did not feel connected to the men telling their stories as the filmmakers intended. They were portrayed as complete social outsiders, but there was never really any indication as to why they felt so disconnected from the rest of society and so connected to animals. Only the deceased man was represented as having an actual life, but he was a secondary character, a moment of the past rather than someone to empathize with.

I think the attention this film has received has to do with the shock value of the subject matter rather than the effectiveness of the film itself. It failed to engage me on an emotional level at all.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

This documentary, directed by Alex Gibney, explored the story surrounding the Enron scandal. In my opinion, the best part of the film was the way it really delved into the life stories/personalities of the key players in the affair. The narrative of the film moved at a fast pace and provided an element of suspense in a story that we already know the outcome to.

There also seemed to be an element of compassion for the lead figures at Enron who have commanded so much scorn. The filmmakers present the lives of these men in a way that suggests there were a number of paths they could have taken. Placed in other situations, they might have acted differently, but combined together in the seductive environment of fantastic corporate success, they seemed almost doomed to be consumed by greed.

The film was an excellent psychological study of what kind of person commits acts of fraud such as this. Not only did men like Skilling and Lay show no regard for the welfare of their employees, they were capable of lying to them to cover up Enron's failures, and to continue lying long after the charade was over. The section of the film which covered the blackouts in California was a particularly compelling example of how greed corrupts. The comparison to the Milgram experiments was also very clever.

It was definitely and informative film which portrayed a side of the Enron case you don't always see. Like The Intimacy of Strangers, the film was effective because it was disturbing. There seems to be no limit to greed, no amount of money that can satisfy those with a hunger. With the rise of huge multinational corporations we have lost personal accountability. In the corporate world we are all capable of just staring at a partition, complacently pushing a button marked 450 volts.

The Intimacy of Strangers

"The Intimacy of Strangers" was a short (20 min.) documentary which consisted entirely of the overheard cell phone conversations of random people. The camera watched the subjects from a distance and the conversations, which mostly involved romantic entanglements, were picked up with sound equipment. A melancholy soundtrack was added to the background for emotional effect, but there was no narration.

The film brought up issues regarding the difference between public and private space. Now that we can talk anywhere, all areas have the ability of becoming private spaces. The people involved in the cell phone conversations usually appeared totally unaware of their surroundings, or the fact that the crowds of people around them were perfectly capable of overhearing these conversations, which were quite personal in nature. Through its intrusion, the film poses the question, is there such thing as privacy anymore?

"The Intimacy of Strangers" is effective because it is disturbing. At any point in time, our conversations could also be recorded and distributed, and there is nothing we can do about it. It is enough to make anyone with a cell phone think twice before they talk. While watching the film, I couldn't thinking about the last time I had used my cell phone.

One of the most visually interesting scenes in the film showed a man talking on his cell phone in a subway station. He was standing in front of a large advertisement, I think for coffee, which read: "Unlock your senses." When we make that connection on our cell phone, the whole rest of the world seems to fade away and we are completely unaware of what is going on around us. We, in a sense, violate our own privacy by refusing to protect it.

This Film is Not Yet Rated

"This Film is Not Yet Rated" was an investigation into the practices of the MPAA, the organization which assigns film ratings. The director of the documentary examined several films which received NC-17 ratings, and interviewed the directors of these films about their experiences with the MPAA. He also hired a team of female private investigators to try and determine the identity of the members of the secret ratings board. The process of uncovering their identities is interwoven with the interviews with film makers, information on the MPAA and its founder, Jack Valenti, clips from the NC-17 movies, and humorous insight into exactly what constitutes an NC-17 rating (with the help of some anatomically correct cartoons).

The film makes its point very clearly and very effectively. The system of rating films in our country is not only completely out of our control, it is also shrouded in secrecy. The MPAA controls which movies we get to see in the theatres and in advertisements, yet there are no discernible guidelines for the rating system, and no information on the people who do the actual rating. It is also clear that there is a huge bias against sexual content. Extreme violence rarely earns an NC-17 rating, but most types of sexual content will. Whats worse, when a film maker receives an NC-17 they are offered no explicit explanation and given only a vague appeals process which usually offers little hope of a change.

In an ingenious move, the director of the documentary (after securing the identities of the ratings board) submitted his film to the MPAA to be rated. Surprise, surprise, he receives a call to inform him he's received an NC-17 rating. He then enters an appeal and is able to re-enact his experience with the appeals board for the final documentary.

"This Film is Not Yet Rated" was entertaining, but also quite disturbing. It is frightening that the film industry is so tightly controlled by this secretive organization which is headed by a man like Jack Valenti. In our country its okay to watch people being blown up or tortured, but should a film maker dare to include the human body or the female orgasm he/she is suddenly a threat to society. It makes absolutely no sense, but it sure offers a lot of insight into our culture.

20th Century Fox

The documentary on the history of 20th Century Fox was very interesting at first. It delved into the very beginning of the film industry and provided footage of some of the first films ever made. Through its wealth of film clips and historical context, the viewer not only witnessed the progression of film technology, but also of the studio, and of the film industry in general. We watched as Richard Zanuck built his empire and navigated it through its considerable up and downs. The film studios which have survived from the beginning are the ones which were headed by strong leaders such as Zanuck, who could survive the challenges (such as the rise of television) that the film industry faced. Unfortunately the film dragged on and began to seem like long commercial for the studio (maybe that's because it was). The incessant stream of clips eventually lost their appeal and began to become somewhat annoying. I was really glad that we didn't finish it.